In order to achieve decarbonization at a global scale by 2050 we will have to pull off a significant global economic withdrawal or depend on exceptionally swift changes reliant on technological breakthroughs

Osama

<h2>Economic development and the energy transition</h2>
The need to highlight discrepancies in carbon emissions and the ineffectiveness of the idea that a single solution can be implemented across the world has been brought into discussion and challenged. There are many problems with the current narrative surrounding energy transitions but one of the most significant and that retains a high degree of relevance to the developing countries or Global South is what I call the imperative of economic development in the debate(s) of energy transitions.&nbsp;
There is a direct correlation between economic growth and carbon emissions at least to a certain extent. Vaclav Smil in his book How the World Really Works explores this in detail when he mentions that the current debate about energy transitions does not include the alternative to the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/padr.12510">4 pillars of modern civilization</a>: Cement, steel, plastic and ammonia, plastic, steel and cement.&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/b26c281499d4bfc5aa921078d2e43e859cb5f1c9.png?" alt="" />
The following observations are from his book and add to this debate in a very constructive manner: In order to achieve decarbonization at a global scale by 2050 we will have to pull off a significant global economic withdrawal or depend on exceptionally swift changes reliant on technological breakthroughs<a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/beyond-magical-thinking-time-to-get-real-about-climate-change">. But once again we return to the debate of developed vs developing countries. It is important to note that in 2020, the average annual per capita energy supply for approximately 40 percent of the global population (3.1 billion individuals, encompassing almost everyone in sub-Saharan Africa) was equivalent to what both Germany and France enjoyed in 1860s.</a> To imitate that standard of living these 3.1 billion individuals must strive to at least double, if not triple, their per-capita energy consumption. This is required mostly in the fields of electricity access, ensuring food production, and establishing infrastructure. However, this will also result in increased carbon emissions.&nbsp;
<h2>What does the future look like?</h2>
Optimistic scenarios estimate a fall of 52 percent in average global per capita energy demand by 2050 as compared to 2020. However, it is important to recognize that reducing per capita energy demand by half within a span of three decades would be an extraordinary achievement, especially considering that global per capita energy demand had actually increased by 20 percent in the preceding 30 years.&nbsp;
The assumption is a twofold increase form of transportation in the next 30 years in Global South along with a threefold jump in ownership of consumer goods. China is pivotal in this regard and acts as a good case study as in 1999 it had about 0.34 cars per 100 urban households but by 2019, this number had surged to over 40, an increase of more than a hundredfold in just two decades! Similarly, in 1990, only one out of every 300 urban households in China possessed an air conditioning window unit. By 2018, however, this figure had skyrocketed to 142.2 units per 100 households, signifying a remarkable rise of over 400 times in less than three decades.
According to another calculation, mentioned by Smil in his book, the removal of 0.9 billion to 1.7 billion tons of CO2 annually would be required to achieve Net Zero in 2050. This would only be possible by establishing an entirely new industry for capturing, transporting, and storing gases would need to be established. This industry would need to handle a volume 1.3 to 2.4 times greater than the current U.S. crude oil production every year. It is worth noting that the development of the crude oil industry took over 160 years and trillions of dollars to build. There is an eminent need to establish such industries that can ensure the reduction of carbon emissions especially among the developed countries as they pose a grave threat to the collective wellbeing of mankind.&nbsp;
<h2>Carbon emissions across the world</h2>
I will write another piece on Smil&rsquo;s book and the highly insightful reality checks therein. But to return to the topic consider the following chart by Our World In Data which also highlights the discrepancy referred to at the start of the article and cements the case for the developed countries reducing their emissions faster than the developing ones. For instance, the UK <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2022/10/26/it-is-unfair-to-push-poor-countries-to-reach-zero-carbon-emissions-too-early/">imported 41 percent</a> of its domestic carbon emissions which is an 11 percent increase from the 1990s. From 1990 to 2019 the country has reduced its emission only by 1.2 percent on an annual basis versus the target of 3.3 percent.&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/956cd7db34021e7a8b0185e8d3c9635ca8ff382d.png?" alt="" />
The following chart shows the carbon intensity per person. See all the thronged areas aren&rsquo;t in Africa or South America. Also, the figures are much higher for the U.S. than China despite its population being 4.35 times lesser!
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/2ad3e026ee6fcf97abefffbe9c9322d624706131.png?" alt="" />
Source: <a href="http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions">Global Carbon Atlas</a>
In the chart below we can see the division of CO2 emissions territory-wise.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/f7b979457fe5c8e4f90df50d53fc2ae9892cb826.png?" alt="" />
Source: <a href="http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions">Global Carbon Atlas</a>
Interestingly, the implications of the Global North &amp; South debate are not confined to the biosphere degradation of the planet; they penetrate deeper than that. They deeply impact the economic landscape of the world and influence the parameters of its success in today's globalized world. Addressing these implications requires acknowledging and working to rectify historical and structural inequalities, promoting active participation of the Global North and supporting sustainable and inclusive economic development initiatives in the Global South.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

The imperative of economic development in energy transitions

The climate solutions being promoted and promulgated should focus on those highly concentrated nodes. High energy intense groups, classes, countries and regions. To peddle a blanket solution that assumingly will work everywhere in the world is to deny or refuse to accept the cultural, social, political, economic, geographic, topographic and otherwise uniqueness and idiosyncrasy of a country.

Humans have been consuming energy since time immemorial (Smil, 2017a). We need energy to survive. Without the conversion of sunlight to phytomass, life as we know it couldn&rsquo;t have existed (Smil, 2017b). The prime movers of energy were first to animate such as ourselves, draft animals using what is called somatic energy, and gradually inanimate movers were introduced. In short, the world breathes energy, from our daily commutes to air travel, and from brick-and-mortar manufacturers and corporations to the sophisticated digital world. Without energy, we wouldn&rsquo;t be doing what we are capable of right now - some may say that it would have been better.&nbsp;
However, in this complex system, i.e. the world, any variable, through its interaction with the system, can have effects that go beyond what we could ever imagine. The relentless use of energy - we have <a href="https://www.fu-berlin.de/en/presse/informationen/fup/2020/fup_20_197-anthropozaen/index.html">consumed more energy</a> since the 1950s than in the past 12,000 years - and deforestation of essential &ldquo;carbon stores&rdquo;, such as the Amazon rainforest, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-55130304">has reached their highest</a> since 2008 and our unbridled culture of consumerism, especially the &ldquo;tech-lust&rdquo;, has lead to a dystopian nightmare. Simple things such as the textile industry <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20201208STO93327/the-impact-of-textile-production-and-waste-on-the-environment-infographic#:~:text=EN_textile_textile%2D03.jpg-,Greenhouse%20gas%20emissions,of%20CO2%20emissions%20per%20person.">contribute more to</a> carbon emissions than flights and shipping combined. The US, China, and EU amount for half of the global carbon emissions while 20 companies dealing with fossil fuels account for more <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions">than one-third</a> of greenhouse gas emissions. However, we get <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs-in-global-energy-consumption-and-carbon-emissions-in-2019/?sh=317d636466a1">more than 80 percent</a> (84 percent to be precise) of our global energy supply from hydrocarbons.
<h2>The evolution of energy use</h2>
To delineate a proper time in history when this exploitation of our environment began is a difficult task. The rate of growth of the global population seems to have a <a href="https://researchfeatures.com/population-growth-energy-consumption-guangdong-china/#:~:text=More%20people%20use%20more%20energy&amp;text=That%20is%2C%20for%20a%2020,for%20energy%20decreased%20by%2044.6%25.">directly proportional relationship</a> with the use of energy (evidently it makes sense as each of us requires energy to survive). However, that rate of growth of the use of energy hasn&rsquo;t been subjected to a uniform distribution. And here is where the topic gets interestingly tricky. The Age of Exploration followed by the colonization of various regions across the world gave a certain group of people the opportunity to harness nature for their own use. But that left a gap, a distortion in the relationship between what is called the Global North and Global South - terms which themselves are products of colonization. The gap still persists. Energy <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use">consumption per person</a> in the U.S. was about 80,000 kWh compared to 4600 kWh in Pakistan.&nbsp; 
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/b6561c0fd28018964df043bf42a23636a4e12ddc.png?" alt="Download" />
Source: Our World in Data
The point is that we all require energy and its use is growing. The EIA estimates a <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433">50 percent increase</a> in energy consumption by 2050, mostly driven by non-OECD countries. Countries that are developing will, probably, increase their energy use. Of course, the efficiency of systems can be increased but it has been improving ever since.&nbsp;
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/c139bceec7a29338b60f26b5a79c951ceba7ee71.png?" alt="Download" />
The question then becomes what do we do in order to tackle this gravely serious issue of climate change and carbon emissions?
<h2>The way forward</h2>
We now turn to the Phronesis. The importance of balance is universally appreciated and lauded and endorsed and advised. Too much of anything is not good or desirable - it is almost a universal truth. I believe the answer to a greener, sustainable, environmentally friendly future is in striking this balance.&nbsp;
But first I will identify what I have understood to be the two main themes or approaches that the discussion veers to while debating about the ways we can solve the issue of climate change and ecological justice.&nbsp;
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">One is that we need to change the very fabric, model, and way we have been living. That is, in a way, saying that we must rescind the capitalist model (using the word without any negative connotation attached to it). The culture and habits of accumulation have to end. Is communism the answer to that? I can't comment as I am not very well versed in these ideas and to be honest - mea culpa - I find the world of "isms" very confusing. Why? It assumes a binary scheme to the world. In reality, the world and our life are anything but binary. There is no black and white, always a gray area.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The second approach to tackling climate change is that we must do so with the use of technology. Technologies such as <a href="https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage">CCUS</a>, <a href="https://carbonengineering.com/our-technology/">DAC</a> and other <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change">Negative Emissions Technology</a> (NETs), can help curb the degradation of our environment. But they certainly aren&rsquo;t enough!</li>
</ol>
(Of course, the use, applicability, and effectiveness of these technologies merit a separate discussion).
In accepting the second, one is indirectly rejecting the first or rather accommodating the idea that we can continue to progress (grow) with the current model of capitalism but that technology will help us do it in a more environmentally friendly and sustainable way. This relates to debates about <a href="https://www.degrowth.info/en/catalogue-entry/the-illusion-of-degrowth-in-a-poor-and-unequal-world/">Growth and Degrowth</a>. In accepting the first, one is, in a way, rejecting the second approach: technology will not help us until or unless we change the way we live. It is time to rethink the world in a different image!
<h2>Facing the difficult questions</h2>
The answer once again may be in the Phronesis. Practical solutions. Is it practically possible for the world to let go of the current model of consumption? In this world, one may ask, do we have the "aires": billion, million, and trillion? Do we have private property? Regarding the culture of consumerism, is it practically possible to let it go? Companies, consumption, cash - it is as if these threads are now a critical, crucial part of the tapestry of the fabric of the way and means with which we interact with our environment!
As mentioned above, digital apparatus, from our mobile devices to computers and the lithium used in electric vehicles to other green technologies, might not be so green. Everything requires, directly or indirectly, some damage to the environment. Google Baotao, a city in inner Mongolia, and see the images of what is a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth">toxic lake</a>, a product of the tech products we use! Rare Earth elements <a href="https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/what-are-rare-earth-elements-and-why-are-they-important#:~:text=%22Rare%2Dearth%20elements%20(REE,flat%2Dscreen%20monitors%20and%20televisions.">are the linchpin</a> of the modern global economy, from aircraft and missiles to iPhones and microwaves. However, all are mined and extracted. What is the alternative? Electricity used by major data centers, which are estimated to have a larger carbon footprint than the whole aviation industry, in the world comes from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/17/internet-climate-carbon-footprint-data-centres">non-renewable sources</a>.&nbsp;
If not for these technological advancements, which are indeed not environmentally friendly, the world would have literally come to a halt during this pandemic.
Similarly, as Arundhati Roy highlights in her essays about the effects that mega-dams or other projects of such nature have had on the indigenous people, such mega-projects usually displace people internally AND destroy natural habitats. But what about the principles of utilitarianism? What if building that dam would have benefitted hundreds of thousands of other people? What do we choose? We are now treading into the field of philosophy. We&rsquo;d rather not.&nbsp;
While it is extremely important, rather crucial, to highlight the negative effects of these trappings of modernity (depending on what we call modernity), it is equally significant to provide alternatives.&nbsp;
<h2>The answer</h2>
If we want to curb our technological use and infrastructural development, we are automatically following the first approach that raises some very potent and relevant philosophical and ideological aspects of development and growth but doesn&rsquo;t provides a practical alternative. A debate to change the way we live or have lived can be useful but too much fixation on this abstraction only without any practical solutions can cost us precious time.
Can we go on with our relentless, reckless, unbridled consumption and exploitation of the environment? The answer to that is a resounding NO! Not at all. We can't afford it. This is where the concept of balance, restraint, and not doing too much of anything comes in - an idea as old as humanity with almost universal acceptability and applicability. We have to curb deforestation, save ocean life, reduce plastic use and mining, drill less, and so on and so forth!
In doing so, technology can be a great enabler in making this shift. However, we need government regulations and efforts by the media, citizens, civil society, and businesses, especially those most responsible for emissions.&nbsp;
The discrepancy between the emissions of the richest 1 percent and the lowest 50 percent is extraordinary. The former is 70 million people responsible for 15 percent of global carbon emissions. The <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/carbon-inequality-2030" target="_blank" rel="noopener">latter</a> are 3.5 billion people!
The solutions being promoted and promulgated should focus on those highly concentrated nodes: high energy-intensity groups, classes, countries, and regions. To peddle a blanket solution that assumingly will work everywhere in the world is to deny or refuse to accept the cultural, social, political, economic, geographic, topographic, and otherwise uniqueness and idiosyncrasies of a country.&nbsp;
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Osama Rizvi

Osama Rizvi

The imperative of economic development in energy transitions

Climate change: it isn’t only about climate

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?